My Thoughts About An Experiment That Requires You Not To Think

As I have been doing this exercise throughout the week I have been trying to do as suggested, and incrementally increase the amount of time I spend in silence. I have been locking myself away somewhere where I believe I won’t be interrupted and I set a timer to time how long I spend in silence. I have taken an incredibly clinical approach to this whole exercise. One could argue that I am just following the example of what we did in class, but I think it’s more than that. I feel like my approach to this silent activity is much like the scientist in the reading who tries to study water.

I am like the scientist because just like he attempts to understand water by studying its properties; I am attempting to understand zen by observing and classifying what it does to the mind. I refuse to just let myself feel the peace and tranquility that comes along with sitting in silence. Instead I keep attempting to emulate what the reading has told me to do, which is incredibly difficult considering how unclear the readings instructions of finding zen were. Every time I have sat in silence I have attempted to observe the inner workings of how I am thinking. I subdivide myself into two categories. When I am sitting in silence, I am both an experiment and a scientist. When I am the experiment I attempt to emulate the readings, but I am also simultaneously attempting to be an objective observer. But fundamentally you cannot be an objective observer, if you are the experiment yourself. According to the readings, you also cannot achieve zen by splitting yourself in two like this.

In a way, I think this experiment is flawed. From my interpretation of the readings, it is impossible to reach zen if you are also observing your thoughts when attempting to reach zen. To reach zen is to just be, and when you are thinking about just being you by definition cannot just be. You cannot be the toad, if you are thinking about being the toad. On the other hand, I think the experiment is brilliant because it demonstrates the idea that you cannot just allow things to be. To get better at something you have to practice and criticise and try to get better. We do not get better by just being. We have to actively seek out improvement and thus I think it is fundamentally important that we observe our thoughts in these states of silence. We have to observe if we wish to learn.

So in the end we have to both be, and think about being. Both are important in obtaining a better understanding of how this silence helps us. I think that ultimately this is what the reading was trying to iterate. I am still utterly confused on how to actually go about both being while also thinking about being. So in many ways this exercise has both taught me a lot and has simultaneously made me feel like I have taken ten steps back from where I started from.

I am really curious what other people’s procedures were in going about this exercise. Did you increase the time? Did you try to follow the guidance of the reading, or did you take your own approach? I thought this was a really amazing exercise and I’m stoked to hear what other’s have to say about it.

Silence in a Technological World

In our society, it is increasingly difficult to find moments of true silence. Silence is defined as an absence of sound, but I have some issues with this definition. Communication has expanded to non-verbal means,and a conversation can occur without either party uttering a single word. While this exchange may adhere to the dictionary definition of silence, is it a true silence? Should we change our notion of silence in order to better fit the increasingly technology based world around us? I think so. Silence has no longer become solely based on sound, but has expanded to communication in general. This current limited definition of silence does not address many forms of communication, that may adhere to the traditional definition of silence, make a sound all their own.

In my own experience with silence, I struggled with the the fact that even if I never heard a noise, I could still communicate with others. This caused  me to reflect on the nature of silence, and come to the conclusion that society needs to broaden this definition. I found that the only times I experienced “true silence,” as I have referred to previously, were times that I was completely isolated from the outside world. This included putting my electronics away rather than just removing myself from sources of sound, as the denotation suggests.

As a society, we have the power to change our language as we see necessary, and this is a necessary change. Often we are hesitant to make changes to precedent, but in this case it is as necessary to change our definition of silence as it once was to change the definition of computer. Until we understand silence as it exists in our world today, many will not experience a “true silence” and will not receive the mental and physical health benefits from such (source).  By changing this definition, we are acknowledging and addressing the technological advancements made that expand our definition of communication. Otherwise, how can we partake in silence if we do not truly understand the meaning?

The Profile Page of a Renaissance Thinker, circa 2017

STEM to STEAM--its historical connection and the current revitalization of that re-entanglement of methodologies--is perhaps my favorite topic of discussion these days. When I think of the Renaissance and contributors like Leonardo da Vinci and talk to people about what that means today, I often put the cultural bridge from the Middle Ages to modern history in context.  It was a time of amazing inventions, startling new ideas, and great explorations. The word Renaissance means to be revived—to be born.  During this era there was a dramatic transformation of world views and the ideal of human power and potentiality was reborn. This shift went hand in hand with a great number of innovations. The list is long, but to pick just a few: the printing press –made knowledge available to a vast number of people beyond the clergy and ruling elite. An increase in literacy soon followed; the pencil and inexpensive paper--made writing, note-taking, sketching and drawing, and therefore the recording of learning accessible; the magnetic compass and the large sailing ship—resulted in tremendous expansion (for better or worse), international trade, and exchange of information. And as we discovered the world was an oblate spheroid much of traditional wisdom was rendered flat! Then there was the mechanical clock which allowed people to experience time as a controllable outcome, or at least a known quantity. In the Middle Ages the vast majority of people didn’t know what year it was or even what century they lived in.

Today we use the term Renaissance woman or man to suggest a well-rounded, balanced person comfortable with both art and science. A polymath. Someone who moves comfortably between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, the scientist-musician, the engineer-painter, the physician-poet. Leonardo da Vinci may be one of our best known polymaths—he was a great scientist and artist, an engineer, a critical thinker, a creative visionary with a broad worldview. He was an inventor, a painter, a perpetual teacher, and a perpetual student, he was an independent thinker and he gathered up every detail he could from all his cognitive senses as he moved through his world. 

What would the modern da Vinci look like? She would need to be attuned to technological developments and information transfer. The modern da Vinci would be globally aware and in addition to appreciating global links in communication, economies, and ecosystems, she would have an appreciation of different cultures. Racism, sexism, religious persecution, homophobia are vestiges of medieval thinking.  The Renaissance thinker would have an insatiable curiosity and an unrelenting quest for continuous learning, with a commitment to test knowledge through experience, persistence, and a willingness to learn from mistakes. This person would continuously refine the experience and perception of all five (plus) of her senses; there would be a willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty. We would witness an active pursuit to develop balance between science and art, logic and imagination …or what some people call “whole-brain” thinking. There would be a recognition and appreciation for the interconnectedness of things and phenomena, or  “systems thinking.”   

As I write this I am reminded of the great American author Annie Dillard when she describes in her essay “Seeing” from Pilgrim at Tinker Creek that we often use sight to calculate what we expect, that definitions and preconceptions can shape what we record. I like using the metaphor of sight when I talk to people about STEAM. One afternoon along a walk near an open space near her home, Dillard runs into an excited group of boys pointing at the willows along the river bank. She asks them what they are looking at. They tell her it’s an enormous frog. She stares right at it, sees the reeds and the gentle movement of water, the angle of light and the tips of the grasses; finally it moves as she sees it is actually the color of brown bark. Because she was looking for the color green she could not really see the bullfrog.  

For the Renaissance thinker seeing is very much a matter of multi-modal exploration and verbalization. Dillard writes “Unless I call my attention to what passes before my eyes, I simply won’t see it. But there is another kind of seeing that involves letting go. When I see this way I sway transfixed and emptied. The difference between the two ways of seeing is the difference between walking with and without a camera. When I walk with a camera I walk from shot to shot, reading the light on a calibrated meter. When I walk without a camera, my own shutter opens, and the moment’s light prints on my own silver gut.” This is the story I would tell to skeptics who are concerned with re-entanglement of arts and sciences.  

The profile page for today’s Renaissance man or woman would illustrate a mental literacy—showing an appreciation for the vast potential of the brain and the multiplicity of intelligences (emotional intelligence at the forefront), to understand that creativity is the basis of any equation or symphony; creativity is on the other side of that Dixie cup string calling in reference to a theory of special relativity or great work of literature. Creativity in all its forms are necessary, to be celebrated, explored, and when our ideas seem flat again, it is creativity and creative risk that brings balance, fosters change and innovation, and our vision can be revived, born anew. To be a modern Renaissance thinker is about the way we perceive, how we look for interpretation and meaning, how we seek ways to find that intellectual balance not just in work and school, but life in general—in the things we choose to do and the ways we push ourselves to really see and think and create.

Inspiration in STEAM

I'm a huge fan of Leonardo da Vinci  because he embraced both the Sciences and Humanities, similar to many in the Renaissance era. It would be fascinating to analyze the typical "Renaissance Man" and speculate what he/she would look like in today's world. Are there any examples you can think of? Who and why?

Perhaps he would look something like Neil Haribisson who listens to colors. Harbisson talks about expanding our physical senses with advancing technology in his TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/neil_harbisson_i_listen_to_color. For example he turned himself into a sort of 'cyborg' where he can now hear color. He demonstrates a very interesting combination of art, technology, and biology.

When talking about the Synthesis between the Sciences and the Humanities it's also important to discuss the basics around STEM to STEAM. John Maeda, who championed STEM to STEAM as president of R.I.S.D. wrote about art and science synergy in the Scientific American here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/artists-and-scientists-more-alike-than-different/# He starts his article saying "Art and science. To those who practice neither, they seem like polar opposites, one data-driven, the other driven by emotion. One dominated by technical introverts, the other by expressive eccentrics. For those of us involved in either field today (and many of us have a hand in both), we know that the similarities between how artists and scientists work far outweigh their stereotypical differences." Meanwhile opponents argue that creativity/arts should be innate in STEM or that integrating arts will dilute the STEM fields. What would you say to people who believe they should be separate?

I'm always astonished about the creativity of McBride students and I would love to see everyone's various types of art/poetry/music inspired by the combinations of the humanities and sciences. It's always great to see engineers be artistic! I some point I'll try and post some of my own art as well.

I could go on and on about various combinations of Humanities and Science, but I want to end with an Einstein quote: "After a certain level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well."

Transpersonal Inspiration & Psychological Mountain Climbing

Transpersonal Inspiration & Psychological Mountain Climbing
By Roberto Assagioli

http://synthesiscenter.org/articles/0136.pdf

How language plays into our concept of time

http://www.popsci.com/language-time-perception

The Ethics of the Consciousness Movement

Would we consider it moral to tell everyone that they not only should play basketball, but should be an NBA player?  How about telling everyone they should get a Nobel Prize, and if they don't they must not be trying hard enough?  Everyone can learn a little quantum mechanics, as my colleague Terry Rudolph has shown in his new book Q is for Quantum, where he uses only arithmetic to explain the radical change in thinking we call "quantum logic."  But not everyone will publish a famous physics paper that changes how we think.

In the consciousness movement, we hear that everyone should strive to be conscious all the time.  We are told that this state of constant awareness is an achievable state for everyone.  It is presented as some kind of enlightenment -- basically human potential at max overdrive. But is that mental state really accessible to everyone?  Or is it more like being an NBA player -- a few people will make it?  Is consciousness some kind of sainthood?  Is it really easily accessible to all of us?

It seems people work very hard for many years to "become conscious."  On the other hand, Suzuki, one of the key translators of Zen into a context we Westerners can grasp and appreciate, writes that we should be unaware.  This rather seems the opposite of consciousness.

So, is the consciousness movement actually unethical?  Are we setting people up to fail? Is this something only achievable by a few? It is even the best state to aim for?  Or is it like the American Dream, where we tell everyone they can achieve whatever they like, at the same time as we automate them out of a job, impoverish them with debt, and offer them limited education?